rapturerebornmmorpgfandomcom-20200216-history
PLAYER COMMENTS ABOUT BURIAL AT SEA
Sitemap PLAYER COMMENTS ABOUT BURIAL AT SEA * See also PLAYER_COMMENTS_ABOUT_BIOSHOCK_INFINITE * See also Burial at Sea --- --- --- --- --- More Internetz Commentz on Burial At Sea : "Remember that it is a common tropehttps://tvtropes.org/ for a female character in this style of fiction to be killed to promote the development of a male, to be downpowered with no return to that prior power, and to be killed off to motivate another character to act, usually a male. These are three separate acts that form part of a systemic, repetitive whole. Okay? Burial At Sea does all three." "She’s beaten to death by Atlas with a fucking wrench." Elizabeth's causing the deaths of thousand is unimportant when a dubious "Saving Sally" is to be done (after a REVENGE killing on 'a' Comstock is also achieved ...) Is it not amazing about these characters which Ken Levine has YOU PLAY - this one wholly delusional in her reasons given for the mayhem she causes. She's enabling BioShock's Jack, who is a mass-murderer (The people murdered on the crashed plane the writers never bother to mention) before YOU ever start playing him, after which he goes on to assist Fontaine in his destruction of order and life in Rapture. - A walkthrough commentator : "I looked around at all the pretty things, but found so little of it interactive, including the people who, when once their little song and dance was done, were just brain dead mannequins." - "As with Burial At Sea Part 1, the torture is the Cargo Cult Creativitygoogle Cargo Cult, aping what happened in another work, without working out what that all was for." "This DLC revisitation of Rapture regurgitates the original game's content, but with little reason behind it simply to allow a magical character to have a shooting spree." - "We’re back to our BioShock Infinite world of Constants and Variables, which is to say, bad and constrained writing. There’s a particular style of writing I remember engaging in when I was twelve years old, and which many other writers at that age did and which, I later learned, some writers never grew out of, which is to imagine your final scene and work backwards until you could force that sequence of events to happen. Now, for good writers, this is often quite rewarding and creates a story where the focus tightens and narrows, but for bad writers, such as the writers here, it means that artificial constraints are added to the story to justify the contrivances necessary to reach that scene. This style of writing didn’t have a name, as far as I know, beyond ‘bad’, but I’d like to suggest now we call it "Constants and Variables". In heroic fantasy, it’s often called Destiny and in videogames it’s sometimes known as Limited Resources, but the point is the same: It’s creating a story where numerous superior options and explanations are obvious and inherent but lacking in the story that you’re shown. You can contrive a story if you’re willing to limit the resources and setpieces. BUT, what about the opportunity of a setting like this, where you’re presented with a world and then infinitely more worlds next to them and you dont even use them ? " - Comments on Shittyness Continues : "An attempt is made to redeem the fucked up depiction of Daisy Fitzroy. Not to redeem her, the character, really, where she’s still depicted as Just As Bad as Comstock – but it’s an attempt to explain her leaping off the slippery slope. It Now turns out that Daisy wasn’t really going to kill Fink’s son, but the Luteces told her she HAD TO threaten to kill the boy, because if she didn’t, Elizabeth wouldn’t kill Daisy and properly grow into herself as part of the play. Note that it wasn’t a Constant or Variable – instead it was simply something the writer wanted done, which is why the Luteces had to flat-out tell Daisy to do it. With all the grace of a fanfiction author, the writers of Burial At Sea Part 2 then tell us : Oh, no, Daisy didn’t really mean it'. So you murder Daisy for no good reason, except to clumsily provide pathos for Elizabeth. This juxtaposes with Elizabeth talking about the Dewitts and a cycle of violence – which is kind of hard to complain about when there’s a powerful pair of quantum gods making sure it happens." - "There’s also the way the existing problems with BioShock Infinite and Burial At Sea Part 1 weren’t fixed either. The game is still very linear, it’s still populated by glassy-eyed mannequins who stand around unnaturally, it’s still full of things that you should be able to interact with, but can’t. It’s still plagued by Press F To Emotionally Connect With The Experience. Under that aesthetic, there’s nothing fixed or improved from the earlier game. The change in mechanics changes nothing about the shallowness of the experience. I played through the whole game in one sitting, on medium, died twice, and never killed anyone. In the same way the shooting parts of BioShock Infinite were repetitive and inorganic, the stealth parts of Burial At Sea Part 2 are also repetitive and inorganic. Rather than simply being a byproduct of BioShock Infinite’s repeatedly rebooted development cycle, it just seems that Irrational weren’t very good at making fun games." --- --- --- Comment about Burial At Sea : It was important that Elizabeth did not feel simply like Booker "in a dress". - Burial At Sea - "Bringing Infinite's characters to Rapture - The result is an adventure with fantastic sights and sounds that don't come together in a meaningful way. There were too many plot points and metaphors which were overly artificial." "The players time was marred by the persistent, suffocating suspicion that they at no time had a solid idea of who they were supposed to be, or what they were doing or why they were doing it." "It seems to have kept the Player at arm's length, rather than sucking him in and providing closure. It attempts to wrap everything up making it feel too much like fan fiction." --- --- --- --- --- . .